Dimensions of creative evaluation: Distinct design and reasoning strategies for aesthetic, functional and originality judgments

Published Date
July 2016, Vol.45:116–136, doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.005
Special Issue: Design Review Conversations

Author 

• Bo T. Christensen ^,

• Copenhagen Business School, Department of Marketing, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg C, Denmark

• Linden J. Ball

• School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

Available online 12 January 2016. 

Highlights

• Creative evaluative reasoning in design critiques by expert designers was examined.
• •
  Evaluation types (originality, functionality, aesthetics) differ in their underpinning logics.
• •
  Multiple logics operate simultaneously under opposing and contrasting assumptions.
• •
  Logics impact reasoning strategies and suggestion making in distinct and predictable ways.
• •
  Logics challenge consensual assessment and outcome-based models of creative evaluation.

We examined evaluative reasoning taking place during expert ‘design critiques’. We focused on key dimensions of creative evaluation (originality, functionality and aesthetics) and ways in which these dimensions impact reasoning strategies and suggestions offered by experts for how the student could continue. Each dimension was associated with a specific underpinning ‘logic’ determining how these dimensions were evaluated in practice. Our analysis clarified how these dimensions triggered reasoning strategies such as running mental simulations or making design suggestions, ranging from ‘go/kill’ decisions to loose recommendations to continue without directional steer. The findings advance our theoretical understanding of evaluation behaviour in design and alert practicing design evaluators to the nature and consequences of their critical appraisals.

Keywords

design critique

design reasoning

design evaluation

evaluative practices

mental simulation

---

 Table 1

Table 1.

 Table 2

Table 2.

 Table 3

Table 3.

 Table 4

Table 4.

 Table 5

Table 5.

 Table 6

Table 6.

 Table 7

Table 7.

 Table 8

Table 8.

 Table 9

Table 9.

• ∗ 
  Corresponding author: Bo T. Christensen

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X15001131